But Flash did work on virtually everything until Apple decided not to support it. And I think that was for marketing and not technical reasons as they claim. Flash on iPads/iPhones means less app store sales. Apple are just a business which simply want to maximise its profitsBesides you avoid addressing the point I made and which Flash haters always avoid and that HTML does not do all that Flash does by a long way and that different browsers can display text quite differently. People also forget Flash is primarily animation software, not just a way of delivering video, which is al lFlash appears to do according to a lot of recent Flash media nonsense.I'm not a big Flash user BTW, but there's a lot of rubbish about what Flash is and how wonderful HTML5 is. Even though HTML5 isn't even here yet.

You are missing the point. No-one is claiming you need Flash to make sites interesting. It is the designer who does that, not the Flash or HTML.BTW that site crashed/locked up in Chrome! Also it uses text [and everything] very minimally, plus text is all in capitals which reduces kerning and ligature issues. Looks like it was designed with the limitations in mind. I like it a lot but it's similar to some I've done myself, so I'm biased! Don't forget photographers websites are more about the imagery they present, so are can be easily done in a non-Flash environment than other more complex design or type led websites.

You can do what people have done for years, have a website for computer monitors and one for small mobile devices. It is better to have a site designed for optimally for each. My new site, when I have time to finish it off, will have a version specifically for such small devices. There's nothing new about that idea.Not sure why you think, I would design a site that uses Flash so it would not work on such devices. Don't even use Flash at all at moment on my FFF website..

Jeremy, I think we do not disagree that much at all. I'm not a flash allergic, but times are changing. I see the same kind of abuses with Jquery in html sites. So yes, it's up to the designer to do the job properlly with flash or with anything else.

Of course html 5 and no flash compatibility is an Apple manouver, I'm perfectly aware of that and their repply to the video flash will not be open source I'm affraid, as many people seems to think. Apple is not an ONG.

Of course html 5 and no flash compatibility is an Apple manouver, I'm perfectly aware of that and their repply to the video flash will not be open source I'm affraid, as many people seems to think. Apple is not an ONG.

That was done as a temporary site a while back. I had shelved my planned site update design [that used SlideshowPro as its CMS], due to the problems that were becoming obvious with Apple. But I [and others] really liked it, so I've delayed changing it. But SSP now have a non Flash solution for displaying one's site on iPad/iPhones, so I'm wondering about a new design again using Director as my CMS.

I should have illustrated my requirements from the off. Here are a few websites that I like - the first two in particular. I'm really after thumbnails to one side that the viewer can click on. Maybe a slide show option too.

It's easier to do fancy-looking sites with Flash - but that's not necessarily better.It's easier to do functional websites with HTML, Search Engines like it better too.

The key question is what you want your visitors to do with your website.

At PhotoDeck (www.photodeck.com), we do only HTML sites - but they're e-commerce photography sites geared towards image sales and delivery rather than portfolios. We have a partnership with A Photo Folio, as Jon mentioned they do flash for the time being, but they're clean designs and similar things could be done in HTML too.

In fact, one of our users is now planning to create another PhotoDeck website for his portfolio, it won't be fancy but there is something to be said for simplicity and performance...

n other words, the question shouldn't be Flash or HTML, but static or CMS driven. Stay static and you'll end up paying a fluffy graphics type to design a site that you can't maintain and change as easily as you think, regardless of whether it's Flash or the newer HTML / Javascript / CSS options.

YUP. Plus, if there is more customization that you would like to do other than what is available to you, hand it to your website designer and have them tweak it. I'm very surprised no one has further commented on aphotofolio sites and your post.

Quote from: JonRoemer

APhotofolio, provides flash based sites that reformat themselves for the iPhone and for the iPad. Additionally, the sites have a mirrored html component which aids in SEO.

I'm looking at replacing my flash galleries with html ones for three reasons really.One yes it will be read by iphone/pads, etc, two yes perhaps it will make my sites more easily searchable by google etc, but the third and main reason is simple speed.Its hard enough keeping potential clients on your websites these days so loading image sisn't something i want any more!

My current flash galleries I build with slideshow pro which gives me the control I want over them and the simple design also.

All the html ones I can seem to find are more cluncky.Has anyone come across html gallery software / templates that allow for a fluid clear design, a bit like my current one i.e. not all the image sin a grid as s start up but simple thumbnails or arrows, etc.I'm happy to pay for the software of course but want to still be able to do it myself.

Allot of great information in this thread. I started reading it so late after beginning work on my new site and I am Glad of the timing. I might have not gone with flash based on the disadvantages of flash mentioned here. After finishing my site, however, I am very happy with the results and do see the advantages of flash.

One thing I did was to keep the pictures small for loading and make the loading section very interesting to watch. Yes you read that correctly the loading section is INTERESTING. I think its a new idea never done before and makes waiting go by so quickly. Check it out at my site by clicking on any gallery ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Allot of great information in this thread. I started reading it so late after beginning work on my new site and I am Glad of the timing. I might have not gone with flash based on the disadvantages of flash mentioned here. After finishing my site, however, I am very happy with the results and do see the advantages of flash.

One thing I did was to keep the pictures small for loading and make the loading section very interesting to watch. Yes you read that correctly the loading section is INTERESTING. I think its a new idea never done before and makes waiting go by so quickly. Check it out at my site by clicking on any gallery. www.aljabri.com

Abdul,your flash site is fast and different from the "standard".The really good thing, and I truly appreciate is that the keyboard arrow keys are enabled.That facilitate a lot the navigation.

I currently use slideshow pro for flash and LR not the standalone director version...but will look into it.Thanks also for the encoding error...not sure where that comes up but I'm getting that particular site optimised over the next week or so that should fix any bugs, etc.

Marc, once you have Director set up the workflow from LR is very simple. There's an export plug-in that sends new pictures directly to an "album", and the images are immediately available to both HTML and Flash sites as well as to the mobile site they're developing for Flash-hobbled devices like Apple's phones/tablet.

After finishing my site, however, I am very happy with the results and do see the advantages of flash. Check it out at my site by clicking on any gallery ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Looks good, but please fix the doc type statement at the top, actually the lack of it. On IE 8 it creates a horizontal scroll bar that won't go away. Put this or the latest standard at the very top of each .html file: